Omicron No more than a cold ?

[Citizen's Nephew]

yes i agree effects people in different ways

I had it last month and luckily had sod all wrong with me just aching limbs for 1 day a bit sleepy and a slight sore throat . had to isolate for 10 days and didn't see a single soul for 12 days . Not complaining as lots of people have it alot worse

as for everyone to get vaccinated worldwide i feel thats a tall order but to say to end civilisation is a bit extreme .

There are some countries dealing with it better than others check out Japan for example

The biggest cruise ship in the world royal caribbean grandeur a few days ago had 55 cases of covid on board out of a total of fully vaccinated 6,000 people according to the cruise line .

How can a fully vaccinated population get any covid positives if everyone on board is vaccinated and tested before boarding ? I don't get it

i won't post a link as i will get accused of all sorts . google it yourself

That's approx. 0.9% of the ship's pop. which is actually really good for something that isn't a clinical trial, uncontrolled, and where people can lie. Plus, you'd need to factor in false +ves & false -ves if they're using LF tests. Increase those figures by log factors and if that was the UK pop of say approx. 60M then that's only around 540,000 +ves. You're actually arguing FOR vaccination without realising it. Expand those figures further to the number of likely fatalities and the figures are even better. Conclusion = vaccinations good.

[MOZZER2]

That's approx. 0.9% of the ship's pop. which is actually really good for something that isn't a clinical trial, uncontrolled, and where people can lie. Plus, you'd need to factor in false +ves & false -ves if they're using LF tests. Increase those figures by log factors and if that was the UK pop of say approx. 60M then that's only around 540,000 +ves. You're actually arguing FOR vaccination without realising it. Expand those figures further to the number of likely fatalities and the figures are even better. Conclusion = vaccinations good.

thanks for response citizen .

the only take on that how the hell can anyone lie about boarding a ship without a PCR test and fully jabbed ? The protocols wouldn't allow that

In terms of language used i would expect 100 per cent yield going in and 100 per cent yield coming out which in terms of six sigma is 3.4 defects per 1 million opportunities

A six sigma process is one in which 99.99966% of all opportunities to produce some feature of a part are statistically expected to be free of defects a defined measurement used in engineering

lets hope its a good vaccine !

[Citizen's Nephew]

thanks for response citizen .

the only take on that how the hell can anyone lie about boarding a ship without a PCR test and fully jabbed ? The protocols wouldn't allow that

In terms of language used i would expect 100 per cent yield going in and 100 per cent yield coming out which in terms of six sigma is 3.4 defects per 1 million opportunities

A six sigma process is one in which 99.99966% of all opportunities to produce some feature of a part are statistically expected to be free of defects a defined measurement used in engineering

lets hope its a good vaccine !

Hey Moz, I do understand the confusion. I don't know the answer as to how people could lie in this scenario, but it has to factored in. Maybe the ship's cat brought it onboard? I'm joking. But you can't extrapolate the precision data from an unprecise trial. 100% yields can't really apply to efficacy i.e. the efficacy of the vaccine. For example, some of those vaccines will fall within an efficacy/potency level and some will fall outside. I'd have to look at Pharmacopeia guidelines to check levels for these but they will exist and won't be of the engineering levels of defects. Then, for example, someone may have had a vaccine, it's been recorded as them having a vaccine, but they didn't get the full dose because of whatever factors contributed to that. These are small but not impossible.

In a controlled clinical trial, everything would be checked, cross-checked, blind, double blind, whatever but most importantly, those clinical subjects wouldn't be allowed out of sight. Everything would be monitored. I get the free of defects analogy but that only applies to the syringe and needle, not the vaccine itself, and certainly not when it comes to the diversity of physiology. Does that make sense? I'm doing this really quickly and can continue tomorrow.

[MOZZER2]

Hey Moz, I do understand the confusion. I don't know the answer as to how people could lie in this scenario, but it has to factored in. Maybe the ship's cat brought it onboard? I'm joking. But you can't extrapolate the precision data from an unprecise trial. 100% yields can't really apply to efficacy i.e. the efficacy of the vaccine. For example, some of those vaccines will fall within an efficacy/potency level and some will fall outside. I'd have to look at Pharmacopeia guidelines to check levels for these but they will exist and won't be of the engineering levels of defects. Then, for example, someone may have had a vaccine, it's been recorded as them having a vaccine, but they didn't get the full dose because of whatever factors contributed to that. These are small but not impossible.

In a controlled clinical trial, everything would be checked, cross-checked, blind, double blind, whatever but most importantly, those clinical subjects wouldn't be allowed out of sight. Everything would be monitored. I get the free of defects analogy but that only applies to the syringe and needle, not the vaccine itself, and certainly not when it comes to the diversity of physiology. Does that make sense? I'm doing this really quickly and can continue tomorrow.

No i don't agree with that citizen so many flaws with your answers

As its xmas I am chilling out now and will glady oblige with having a good debate after xmas.

lets hope everyone on here on stays safe all over the xmas period and beyond